Lawsuit may have forced Microsoft to change what it means to be Vista Capable

Two weeks ago, Dianne Kelley started a class-action
lawsuit against Microsoft alleging the software company is engaging in
deceptive practices by branding new computers with a Windows Vista Capable
logo even if they couldn't run the all the new operating system’s features.

Although Microsoft strongly refutes Kelley’s claims, the
threat of a lawsuit may have triggered the company to change its language on
what “Vista Capable” means. As clipped by a blog at the Seattle
Times, Microsoft originally described its Windows Vista Capable program
as the following (all bold emphasis added by Seattle Times author):

“Through the Windows Vista Capable program, Windows XP-based PCs
that are powerful enough to run Windows Vista are now available from
leading PC manufacturers worldwide, including Acer Inc., Dell Inc., Fujitsu
Limited, Gateway Inc., HP, Lenovo, NEC Corp., Sony Corp., Toshiba and more. The
Windows Vista Capable logo is designed to assure customers that the PCs they
buy today will be ready for an upgrade to Windows Vista and can run the core
experiences of Windows Vista.”

Shortly following
the news of the lawsuit, the explanation of the Windows Vista Capable program
appeared to have changed to this:

“A new PC running Windows XP that carries the Windows Vista Capable PC
logo can run Windows Vista. All editions of Windows Vista will deliver core
experiences such as innovations in organizing and finding information,
security, and reliability. All Windows Vista Capable PCs will run these core
experiences at a minimum. Some features available in the premium editions
of Windows Vista — like the new Windows Aero user experience — may require advanced
or additional hardware.”

While both the original and updated descriptions mention
that Vista Capable means being able to run the “core experience,” the updated
passage clearly states those experiences will run at a minimum.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

From John Levits in A League of Their Own:"Well that would be more now wouldnt it!"

Thats a 50% faster CPU and 2x the ram of minimum. Im surprised you didnt go insane if those are your specs before it gave out but it all depends on what you do and the fact remains it will work but I doubt you were running quake 4 on that machine.

I believe the point he was trying to make is that while machines near "minimum" spec will almost always run the software or O/S, their performance will be less than "minimum" to have a reasonably operating system.

If I see a game or software item that my machine reaches minimum I dont buy it because I know the experience will be significantly degraded unlike the recommended specification to which is was most probably designed around.

I don't see this lawsuit as frivolous, and I am a pretty good Microsoft fanboy when it comes down to it.

Microsoft needs to make their minimums in line with what people would need to run EVERYTHING in the operating system at a reasonable speed, period.None of this "With some features turned off" BS.

My family just recently bought a new Windows Vista Home Premium PC, and I'm already thinking of upgrading the memory in it because the 1GB it came with, Windows Vista sometimes get bogged down with when I am just running Internet Explorer.

I think you need to go and grab a dictionary off from the wall. Look up the term "minimum".

Agreed, they should state to every tard in the world that while the $300 machine they got is capable of running Vista, it wont run it flat out. However, 90% of the people buying pcs either know this or know somebody who does. It is just a matter of them being sharp enough to ask for help. (Get what you pay for anybody?)

However, saying that they should change the way they post minimum specs for software as being able to run everything is totally wrong. Any game you look at that you try and run with minimum hardware is going to be running at super low res with all the eye candy turned off. I have yet to see another piece of software that is different than this. Microsoft is simply following the currently accepted industry standard. But thankfully there are people who do know better and try and keep the special people from hurting themselves.

I am not a Microsoft fanboy either....I use it because I have no choice. But I do really get sick of people jumping all over the guy who happens to be the biggest at the time with lawsuits that are just exploiting the fact that there are computer illiterates out there.

You would be correct on my point. Also to the other poster it started out as a gaming rig in about 1997 or so but wound up mostly as a word processor and for the internet after about 1999. I could have left 98 on there but I wanted to test out XP on it before my 1ghz t-bird system got it, just to see if it was worth upgrading to XP at the time.